Viser arkivet for stikkord science
Is an answer a valid answer if the answer fails to answer the obvious question the answer makes nessesary?
Example; Statement A is true because Reason B. Given this very common form of argument, can reason B ever be true, or considered true, if one does not also give an answer to Reason C, which makes Reason B true? Any reason B given must question itself by giving a reason C which makes reason B is true, and a reason D which makes reason C true and so on, and conceed where the end of reasoning has come in the argument. For example, if argument A is true because Reason B, because Reason C, because Reason D, but has no scientifically or logically valid Reason yet to make Reason D true, it should be pointed out, by the defending side of an argument (the one with burden of evidence), and any argumenter that does not do this readily, should be dismissed until such time atleast an end of reasoning is given. Though this does give room for Reason B1, Reason B2 etc so one can give more of one type of evidence (for example if a fossil is Reason B1, you can add more fossils as B2, B3 etc).
This should speed up argumentation in arguments that commonly only defend statement A with Reason B, without no thought to Reason C, Reason D, or that the line of reasons B, C, D, E etc exist at all (For example theism, tax-law, law, politics, psychology (those important psychologists without good scientific instruments still influence reasoning in that field heavily), public services (clamour for more money is rarely reasoned even as far as Reason B), lobbying (its very easy for anyone with time on their hands to say A is true because of Reason B, deregulate and tax corporations and the rich less (which is the problem in the majority of the economy-crisis -stricken nations)), corporate public relations and a thousand other things not too acsociated with the science of argumentation).
Psychology is often misunderstood, and all too often the word “mind” holds an almost theistic meaning. But there is a science behind what I must say in an argument with someone else, to get that someone else to change his mind, if what I am arguing is true or not only changes the difficulty.
For example, how do one get someone that believes in “chemtrails” to see reason, which is that the streaks after jet airplanes make the water in the air the airplane passes through to condense into clouds. How does one find a group of words that will be successful in convincing someone that does not believe this? Because if I say “this is rubbish, no one has ever found chemicals in these trails beyond what the fuel combustion releases”, it is almost guaranteed to not work. Because they have hundreds of opinions and beliefs they believe are facts about the world based on the one opinion that someone pays for filling up airplanes with thousands of tons of chemicals every year that they release all over the world from high altitude, and that no one on the inside ever dares speak of it. How does one make an argument that does not get rejected? The problem is not the facts or logic you convey, but how you convey it. I have for example found that most arguments get rejected not because of lacking logic or reason in the argument, but because the person who is told an argument think it will lower his/her social standing to agree, or a million other reasons that has nothing to do with what is being argued. A wrong use of the word “you” and the most well-spoken, well-reasoned, logical and scientifically proven argument gets rejected by the other side. This is merely a phenomena of human nature and nurture and should not be mistaken as “the one I argue with are all stupid and incapable of accepting facts”, because you also have this phenomena, the point you should take from this is that it is your mistake as an argumenter if you can not form a sentence that will get the other side to accept your argument. We are all subject to the laws of physics so rigid that a key can exist which never fits a certain lock, your words are as a key and the other person is like the lock, without the right key, the lock never fits, without changing your own lock, you never really understand what the other side is arguing, nor will you use the other side’s argument for all that it is worth, and without changing the key you try without the purpose of making a key that fits as a goal, you will fail. To argue merely to argue, without the goal to actually convince people of your view, is as useless as talking to yourself.
I hope you apply the science of forming an argument with the psychology of accepting arguments in your mind, because without it, ignorance will flourish as the children of ignorant people also adopt ignorant ways without us becoming better at arguing with ignorant people.
I also hope you keep in mind that we are born like blank slates, with nature-derived biases from evolution, but with no knowledge, and that we learn the same information at school (if we are A students, otherwise it will be some unique portion we do not know), so there should be a universal way of convincing someone to accept your argument, but only as far as for those that learned the same things in school. So people from different nations will be quite different, for good and bad. There will also be some difference from one class to another, from one town to another, from one school reform to another, and from one parent to another, from one grandparent to another etc. All the people and experiences in the lives of the person you are trying to get to accept your argument, will affect how you can get the person to accept your argument. So there will be some experiences that are very easy to base an argument from, easy as they will easily accept your argument, and there will be things that are very difficult to base arguments on, difficult as they will most often reject your argument regardless of what it says. An example; The trees are red, is an argument. They will reject this argument if they have experienced green trees, or if many people they know have said trees are green. So regardless of what you say, yellow trees, ultraviolet trees etc, it will be rejected. Most arguments for why trees are another color will be rejected no matter how much sense they make, how much evidence they present, and it is statistically almost impossible to get someone that believe trees are green to believe that trees are not green, if you use an un-enlightened approach to argumentation. It is the same with religion. They have lived inside religion, experiencing green trees so to speak, experiencing people they know and respect and trust saying trees are green etc. But, this does not mean it is impossible to figure out an argument that they will accept. Otherwise no one would have ever believed the planet went around the sun. Because the sky would look the same if the planet went around the sun or the sun went around the planet, both claims are to the senses of humans equally true. But somehow the facts were enough to change what the children experienced as truth from one to the other, perhaps without their parents accepting the new view and the children mostly only accepting the new view because the old view weren’t presented first. A study of how the world went from accepting an earth-centered universe to a sun-centered universe, could do wonders to the science of argumentation.
Nothing ever comes from nothing. No invention is invented without most of its ingredients allready being invented. James Watt did not start the age of the steam engine, he merely tried to repair a steam engine made by Thomas Newcomen and stumbled upon a way to make it more effecient. The first artificial fertilizer was a failed attemt at making artificial diamonds, the first artificial dye was a failed attemt at making artificial quinine, todays strong steel was first made in glass furnaces, the electric spark was first used to find “bad air” because bad air was at the time what people thought malaria came from (“mal aria” is italian for “bad air”) and the perfume-spray is where the car manufacturers got their fuel injection system.
How then, can we expect that we will continue to make alot of new inventions and world-saving technologies when everyone get the same education, the same information, the same ingredients for making something new, did you invent something? Did any of your classmates? Did anyone in your school invent something? Did they add to scientific knowledge? Did any of you solve a problem? Did any of you figure out how to live a little bit longer? And if they invented something or added to scientific knowledge, did they need the information they got in school to invent that thing or to figure out that bit of scientific knowledge? And if they did use something they learned in school, did they only need a tiny bit of information from a single class in a single semester or did they need all of it? And when the people that decided what to teach in school looked through all the information, and obviously didn’t see ingredients that together could be put together to invent something world-saving or game-changing bit of scientific knowledge or technological invention (they didn’t invent something or publish a scientific paper based on what they decided schools should teach), how can we expect it will make others that learn this information invent something great? If the people that decide what schools should teach never gets an epiphany, never invents something new and never adds to scientific knowledge or scientific culture, based on what they decide schools should teach, then they obviously haven’t chosen the right information and way to teach.
School, all the way from the beginning, to the doctorate level, should be filled with good ingredients for invention, scientific progress, abstract questioning and cultural growth. There are those things we need to know to function in the world, like to add and multiply and to read and write, but when have you ever seen someone invent something because they remembered how to write a word or because they remembered what the name of a bird or cloud-formation is? When did you see someone figure out something new about the universe because they remembered when Napoleon fought a battle or figured out food supply was a military problem? When did you last see a physicist invent a new formula of mathematics that explains something about the universe, because he or she remembered how to solve an equation just by following the guidelines of how to solve a certain formula and not actually understanding the mathematics?
So how can we figure out what to teach, how to teach, so we get the true potential from education? I haven’t got a clue, yet. But be aware, however we teach the kids it better be good, because it is todays kids that will take care of you when you are old and if they lack a large enough perspective of time they’ll probably just dig a hole and toss old people into it not knowing they themselves will go there before their time. Can’t say I find it conceptually much different from what the previous generations has done to the future generations through pollution and all the rest of the shortsighted ideas that work extremely well, for just a while. I for one is extremely disapointed that you have spent all this money in ways that do not make us live longer, just because so many of you believe you’ll live forever after you die (did you not also teach us that one chicken in ones hands is better than ten hens on the roof?!).
But this blogpost is long enough, be glad old people; that it is seemingly impossible to travel back in time, if it wasn’t impossible we’d all be in big trouble.